Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing to take a look at the grammar and for explaining the use of the word ““particular””, but the amendment about the five-year period is more substantive. It provides an opportunity to underline some of the points I made earlier in a debate on other amendments, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Greaves for highlighting once again that it is the question of process here that is causing us a problem. Sanctions and penalties are available to people because of the office they hold that would not be applied to anyone else. That is one area where there is a potential conflict with human rights legislation. I ask the Minister and her team to look at rulings in the European Court about the use of courts martial, for example. It ruled against the use of courts martial, on the basis that they provided a level of sanction against someone that would not be available if they were doing some other job and that the procedure used to arrive at the decision was rather less robust than normal legal process. I suggest that it is possible to interpret that ruling on the military as applicable to this situation. No one on these Benches, the Benches opposite or in local government wants convicted criminals standing for councillors. Nevertheless, there is a question of balance, and it goes back to my earlier point about natural justice. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendments Nos. 238ZJ and 238ZK not moved.] Clause 199 agreed to. Clauses 200, 201 and 202 agreed to.